Could Joseph Smith be a "Fallen Prophet"

[yaanufs]

Well.. Joseph was sealed to men too yet I don't see anyone like Lori getting their g-strings in a wad that he was gay.

I've never heard of this before. There must be a previous thread that has discussed this.

Can you provide a link or does this comment of yours come under the category of unsubstantiated noise

[Zakuska]

Sure thing...

http://www.helpingmormons.org/mentomen.htm

As most people who are familiar with Mormonism know, dedicated Mormons believe in sealing women to men and children to their parents for all eternity. Few people, however, are aware of the fact that the early Mormons sealed living men to other men in an unusual ceremony known as "the law of adoption." Thus a man could have any number of men adopted to himself as his sons for eternity. For example, in June, 1896, Wilford Woodruff, the fourth president of the church, gave a synopsis of his work in the ministry since 1834. He wrote the following in his journal: "I officiated in Adopting 96 Men to Men." (Wilford Woodruff's Journal, 1833-1898, typescript, edited by Scott G. Kenney, 1985, Vol. 9, page 408) In another synopsis for the years 1834-1885, he revealed: "I had 45 Persons Adopted to me." (Ibid., Vol. 8, page 352)

[Scott Gordon]

It used to be that many people were sealed to one another. You can read about it in Jaunita Brooks book on Mountain Meadows. It isn't what the book is about, but it brings up the issue.

I think the idea (just guessing here) was that we are all part of one big family so we are all sealed back to the prophet of the dispensation.

This is one of those practices that I would classify as a good first attempt at understanding the principle (speaking from my opinion.)

Scott

[Zakuska]

Which brings up the fact that... alot of BY and JS "marriages" where merely sealings or Adoptions.

And TD,

Any one can fane a roll in the hay!

We've rolled in the hay...

[Moxy]

Sure thing...

http://www.helpingmormons.org/mentomen.htm

As most people who are familiar with Mormonism know, dedicated Mormons believe in sealing women to men and children to their parents for all eternity. Few people, however, are aware of the fact that the early Mormons sealed living men to other men in an unusual ceremony known as "the law of adoption." Thus a man could have any number of men adopted to himself as his sons for eternity. For example, in June, 1896, Wilford Woodruff, the fourth president of the church, gave a synopsis of his work in the ministry since 1834. He wrote the following in his journal: "I officiated in Adopting 96 Men to Men." (Wilford Woodruff's Journal, 1833-1898, typescript, edited by Scott G. Kenney, 1985, Vol. 9, page 408) In another synopsis for the years 1834-1885, he revealed: "I had 45 Persons Adopted to me." (Ibid., Vol. 8, page 352)

Just another example of the absuridity and complete blindness of what people will buy into when they "Need" to belive. What a disgrace. Hey anyone want to adopt me? lol

[Zakuska]

Not even if you paid me a bazillion bucks!

Now Lord Kerry, or DCP... they can Adopt me!

[Moxy]

I think the idea (just guessing here) was that we are all part of one big family so we are all sealed back to the prophet of the dispensation.

Excuse me?? Sealed back to the Prophet? Hmm...is he your God now?

Sorry, my God is enough for me.

[Zakuska]

Moses was Pharoahs god.

Peter and Paul had their children in Christ too.

[dude]

I don't see anyone like Lori getting their g-strings in a wad

Is there a new garment style I didn't know about..........?

[Gaia]

The women were emotionless and dehumanized by practicing.

This is an unfair mischaracterization of my ancestors and the stuggles that they faced and I don't much appreciate it.

Maybe Lori wasn't providing an accurate depiction of Zakuska's ancestors, but the description certainly fits mine.

It troubles me to hear people taking one side or the other of this issue, and trying to discredit, denigrate or trivialize the other side.

The reality is that *some* people found polygamy a great trial, and others did not.

For some women, polygamy offered an opportunity to go east for training they might otherwise not have been able to obtain -- Mormon women were among the first lawyers, doctors, etc in the country.

For other women, polygamy was a nightmare. And for still others, it was a "mixed bag" --

We needn't attempt to discredit anyone, but rather try to appreciate all their views and experiences.

* * * * *

Another Issue: The "Excess Women" Explanation for Polygamy:

Even LDS leaders have themselves debunked the common explanation that polygamy was practiced because of a surplus of righteous women:

LDS apostle John Widsoe :

[USU78]

Gaia said:

We needn't attempt to discredit anyone, but rather try to appreciate all their views and experiences.

Yeah, there you go again, gettin' all reasonable on us. Sheesh. Don't you know what this board's for?

[truth dancer]

Hi Zak...

We've rolled in the hay...

Hmmm I don't seem to recall this. I guess it wasn't too memorable!!!

~dancer~

[Zakuska]

You sound like Emma... Denial. <As Chum and anchor would say>

But I can make the aligation.

Get my point?

[Beowulf]

Orson Pratt wrote that in 1853?

Hmmm.

While I am willing to accept the assertion that women did NOT outnumber men in the LDS church (although my personal experience in areas where the church is just starting is that women DO join in larger numbers than men), I have always thought that in the 1850s it WAS given as a reason.

Parley P. Pratt (Orson's older brother) mentions this in his autobiography, which he completed one year before his murder in 1857. He includes a defense of polygamy and states that society ALWAYS has more women than men, and that polygamists are taking care of this excess, rather than society's general way of doing so (through prostitution and mistresses).

It is a fine autobiography. I read it years ago, but do not have a copy with me.

He includes a poem he wrote on turning 50 years old (he did not live to be 51), which I have lately been thinking about, since that date recently crept up on me, too....

Beowulf

[Zakuska]

The missionaries called my wifes branch in Brazil "the snake pit" because there was a Bishop, a First conselour, the rest where women and children, and mostly teenage girls chasing after the missionaries.

After her mission she decided to come to the US to the the fabtrica (Missionary plant) to order her's directly. Which was a good thing for me... I couldn't stand the US girls who I had written my whole mission. So stuck up and childish and wordly.

The Lord does answer prayers.

[Gaia]

Sure thing...

Few people, however, are aware of the fact that the early Mormons sealed living men to other men in an unusual ceremony known as "the law of adoption." Thus a man could have any number of men adopted to himself as his sons for eternity.

Well there's no great mystery about this doctrine. It hearkens back to several other basic Gospel principles --

The entire Gospel is a plan of Parents first receiving themselves -- and then extending to their children -- the powers, gifts, blessings, challenges, responsibilities and opportunities of *LIFE* -- in various forms and stages:

-- First, physical life; then Spiritual Life, and finally, Eternal Life.

-- All along the way, there are Parents who "facilitate" and administer each stage of Life -- with its attendant powers, blessings, obligations, responsibilities, etc -- to their children.

THAT, essentially, is the MEANING and Purpose of Priesthood.

Joseph Smith said (in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith p 322):

"...There are three grand orders of priesthood referred to here.

1st. The King of Shiloam (Salem) had power and authority over that

of Abraham, holding the key and the power of endless life. .....

What was the power of Melchizedek? 'Twas not the Priesthood of

Aaron which administers in outward ordinances, and the offering of

sacrifices. Those holding the fulness of the Melchizedek Priesthood

are kings and PRIESTS of the Most High God, holding the keys of

power and blessings.....administering endless lives to the sons and

daughters of Adam."

As one extends and administers these powers, blessings, responsbilities, etc of each stage of LIFE, one becomes (in a sense) a Father or Mother in that stage, to that person.

The Saints began acknowledging this by sealing themselves to those who they felt had been greatly responsible for extending to them the blessings and powers of Spiritual Life.

Unfortunately, this practice began to be abused, with various people contending with each other, to be sealed to "higher" or more popular authorities.

As church membership grew, more people had more of their own relatives coming into the Church and (eventually) the practice of Temple work for the deceased developed, and the practice was discontinued. The Saints were encouraged to seal themslves to their biological, legal parents, and to build up the Patriarchal Order to "match" the earthly order.

Blessings --

~Gaia

[Brackite]

Hello Lori,

A message board that you might want to go to is called, New Order Mormons. It is generally a message board for those who have just discovered some disturbing aspects of the LDS faith, but who choose to remain connected to the LDS Church. This Message Board is Not Anti-Mormon like the Ex-Mormon message board is. Here is the link to that New Order Mormon Message Board:

http://www.aimoo.com/forum/freeboard.cfm?i...20&NoCaches=Yes

[Guest Lori]

Well.. Joseph was sealed to men too yet I don't see anyone like Lori getting their g-strings in a wad that he was gay.

Zak,

First of all I can't believe you think I wear G-strings

Did Joseph have sex with these men he was sealed to? I haven't read any testimony on men saying they slept with him but there are many testimonies of women saying they did.

It seems like some of the passionate defenders of everything related to Joseph and polygamy are misreading what I am doing here. I don't need to hear over and over that he did just what God commanded him to. If that is God's will for women then I feel worthless. I was hoping for some insight on how some of you came to terms with the horrible things that were done to Emma and others. If you can't even admit that then how can we even talk about it?

I guess I am shocked that some of the apologists are defending sin. If you believe polygamy was really a true revelation then that's fine. Just don't defend what was done to Emma.

How can you say one minute that prophets make mistakes because they are human and then say they can't make any mistakes on revelations? We know there are mistakes in revelations-look how many are gone from our Doctrine after the original. Then some won't even admit that Joseph did anything wrong with polygamy. They shudder that I said he lied. He did lie and not just to Emma. To the church.

I am disappointed that the serious apologists here won't even be honest about the history with me. We have all read the polygamy history haven't we?

[Moxy]

Orson Pratt, writing in 1853 from direct knowledge of Utah conditions, when the excess of females was supposedly the highest, declares against the opinion that females out numbered the males in Utah...

[Calm]

If that is God's will for women then I feel worthless.

Some women have that attitude toward marriage in the first place. If one can only be a god in the highest level of exaltation with a spouse, whether man or woman, then they "feel worthless" as they think that means they are nothing as an individual.

Why would your relationship with your husband in any way determine whether or not you have worth?

As to what Joseph did to Emma, I don't think he treated her very nicely at times; according to some sources she had moments she wasn't terribly kind to him either (there is a rumour that she tried to poison him). From what I've read, it was a passionate marriage in many ways with more than its share of hardships. Two strong personalities tend to create points of conflict, but I don't see how anyone less strong than Emma was could have survived at all. I don't think Emma expected what she got and while she often honoured Joseph and his calling as prophet, she resented the demands that it placed on him as well. If the marriage had been left at that stage, it still would have been troubled imo. Taking it to a polygamous one exponentially increased conflict, but conflict in a marriage isn't necessarily a bad thing. One long time marriage that I know that has lots of conflict also has had great personal progress for both individuals; they've learned to rely not only on each other, but on their selves. Another long time marriage that had little conflict in the decades I'd seen it resulted in a very loving and supportive relationship, but I didn't see much development in any direction in the couple and when one died, the other basically became a couch potato and stopped interacting with anyone. Died shortly thereafter too not having done all those things dreamed of, but had put off for the peace of the relationship.

I can also understand why Joseph might have done what he did in regards to polygamy in starting out with good intentions, but faulty understanding and a big dose of human weakness. I know lots of men who take the easy way out of not telling a wife bad news and make the excuse that they are trying to protect the wife rather than themselves. Or maybe Joseph sat there thinking about all that he had asked Emma to go through with him, the deaths of some of their children, the separation from her family, the separation from him, the fear and hardships and he just couldn't find the strength to ask her once more to endure and he convinced himself that with a little time and a little peace and rest, she would find it easier to face. Or maybe it was both or neither. I think the evidence is pretty strong that Joseph didn't tell Emma at the beginning and I don't condone him not sharing it all with her if this is so (except in the unlikely to my mind case that God commanded him to keep it quiet from her). If it was a revelation (and I happen to believe it is for my own reasons) and he was commanded by God to institute immediately, then Joseph was in a very difficult position. My feeling is that he relied too much on his own incomplete understanding and not enough on asking God for confirmation of his plans. He got some of it right and other of it wrong.

He had to worry not only about his home life, but about the reaction of the church and the surrounding communities. I think his past experience with the First Vision and the Book of Mormon made him overly cautious to avoid certain obstacles. I don't think one of those obstacles should have been his wife.

The whole situation doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but there's a whole bunch of doctrine that doesn't exactly seem all that practical. Why in the world would God construct a world where his Son had to be killed in order that the rest of his children could be saved? Any why all those shifting continental plates? Why not create a stable world with a balanced food cycle so that everyone could have enough to eat and a safe place to live so they could concentrate on more emotional and spiritual development?

If I want it to make sense, I need much more data than is out there. Joseph doesn't give all the other details, but enough revelation and confirmations are given by others that I believe that the revelation was real including the one where Joseph was placed in a do or die position (whether this is because God wanted polygamy to happen then or whether he really wanted Joseph to ask him why and God would have withheld the command as he did for Abraham or something else, I don't know). From that assumption I have to ask what God had in mind when he knew that the social reaction would be detrimental to the members of the church, at least in numbers. Newly converted members not having deep roots would likely be able to lose faith. Did God want to protect them or was that just Joseph's justification and did God really want to try the early Saints in the Refiner's Fire? It happened eventually after all. Maybe Joseph just put it off with the cost of the moment's peace quite high.

That doesn't make him a fallen prophet for me, weakness in one area doesn't mean weakness in all areas and the line upon line concept applies to prophets as well as the rest of men.

Joseph wasn't a finished product, to judge him that way would be presumptuous. Same with Emma. Judgment occurs before the throne of God and he, just like everyone else, had a lot more learning to do (there's a great quote of his about us currently being on the low rungs of the ladder with the rest to be climbed after this life--he's referring to the endowments in particular, but I think it applies to everything).

Add-on: is it the lying that you are calling a sin (if one goes with the assumption that the revelation was real, then it can't be the marriages themselves)? If so, is it because he lied to Emma or to anyone? If the latter, do you believe that there may be times when God instructs someone to lie in order to protect them (Abraham and Sarah come to mind as well as the ultimate example of protecting a Jewish guest from the Nazis).

[Zakuska]

First of all I can't believe you think I wear G-strings

A figure of speech as to not take the name of the holy in vain.

Did Joseph have sex with these men he was sealed to?

Thats the Point. None of them did and niether did many of the women.

I haven't read any testimony on men saying they slept with him but there are many testimonies of women saying they did.

Again... Heresay and gossip. Wheres all the proof? As sooo many have reminded us on this thread... Josephs polygamy had noting to do with "raising up seed" (Jacob 2:30). Until the DNA results come back in a few months. Nothing but heresay has been presented.

It seems like some of the passionate defenders of everything related to Joseph and polygamy are misreading what I am doing here.

[Calm]

What was Emma thinking... throwing a pregnant woman down the stairs? 

In todays world she would be halled in on murder charges. Kind of like Mark Hacking.

Even accepting the rumours as true, she did nothing like Hacking did. There is no indication that there was anything premeditated about it.

[Zakuska]

Ah... sin of passion. huh?

[truth dancer]

Hi Zak....

But don't go comdeming Polygamy because of the way some fallible humans lived it.

Zak... I think all forms of mating and partnering at some point had purpose and reasons. If we look back in history we can identify every form imagineable.

But lets for a sec go with modern day life.... for some, myself included, I do think polygamy goes against the way in which the world/life/God/Source/universe is unfolding. IOW, it is a BIG step backward in terms of the developing human consciousness. It is a BIG step backward in terms of understanding compassion, having balance in the world, knowing the depth of relationship that is beyond what has been possible when mating was solely for procreation and species survival.

So... IMO, the very practice is ugly. I don't like the word "wrong" because as I stated various forms of mating have been upon the earth for a very long time. I do however think (at least for the last few thousand years) polygamy is hurtful and unhealthy not only to the individuals involved both men and women, but to society, the greater human experience, and ultimately to the universe.

YANG/yin,yin,yin,yin,yin,yin,yin is not exactly a harmonious balance....

~dancer~

[truth dancer]

Hi Lori...

Here is my understanding regarding how many believers rationalize/justify/accept polygamy...

Joseph was just following the command of God...

It was a test for the early members of the church...

Jospeh didn't fully understand polygamy but did his best...

We don't know all the reasons but God does....

Polygamy is really a great institution and ultimately the ideal form of marriage, humans just make mistakes.

Joseph didn't know how to best handle the situation so may have made some mistakes.

It is my observation that many believers find one of these ideas to work for them.

I personally can't belive in a God that would command a prophet to begin a practice that would hurt women and children and many young and less powerful men.... a practice that would go against the beauty and holiness of the evolving compassion for women... a practice that to ME, harms society and humanity and children. It just doesn't make sense or feel holy to ME.

~dancer~